Comments on: Reading Summaries for Week 5http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/02/21/reading-summaries-for-week-5/
Graduate class in (new) Media (networked) Culture and (distributed) Communication @NYUWed, 20 Apr 2011 19:22:11 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1By: Harrishttp://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/02/21/reading-summaries-for-week-5/comment-page-1/#comment-582
HarrisTue, 23 Feb 2010 21:40:09 +0000http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/?p=5688#comment-582Re: The issue of unpaid labor raised by Jimena and the responses by others
Yes, the market will not go away, but in certain domains it will become irrelevant.
''Those thousands of ‘volunteers’ did unpaid labor, and those PhDs didn’t get the job''
- The salary of those PhDs, if they had been hired by NASA, would have come from the taxpayers' money. If some of the taxpayers can volunteer to do it themselves, the money can be spent somewhere else.
Those volunteers did it for public good and personal fulfillment. If something can be achieved more efficiently without involving the market, then the market will be irrelevant.
That is the major difference between the kind of labor they talked about in the TNS conference and NASA's project.Re: The issue of unpaid labor raised by Jimena and the responses by others

Yes, the market will not go away, but in certain domains it will become irrelevant.

”Those thousands of ‘volunteers’ did unpaid labor, and those PhDs didn’t get the job”

- The salary of those PhDs, if they had been hired by NASA, would have come from the taxpayers’ money. If some of the taxpayers can volunteer to do it themselves, the money can be spent somewhere else.

Those volunteers did it for public good and personal fulfillment. If something can be achieved more efficiently without involving the market, then the market will be irrelevant.

That is the major difference between the kind of labor they talked about in the TNS conference and NASA’s project.

]]>By: Harrishttp://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/02/21/reading-summaries-for-week-5/comment-page-1/#comment-581
HarrisTue, 23 Feb 2010 21:23:29 +0000http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/?p=5688#comment-581'What does it mean to own something?' We look at our history and our own position in that history in terms of that question.
You ask if/how commons-based peer production can help our economy or growth - my question is, maybe there is a redefinition of economy like there is a redefinition of ownership?
Do we have to measure the benefits of peer production in terms of conventional economic principles? Or do we need a new scale?
I'm looking at a time when we won't need to earn part of our salary that we spend on buying information and entertainment.
Will peer production spill over from the digital media to production of food and other necessities?‘What does it mean to own something?’ We look at our history and our own position in that history in terms of that question.
You ask if/how commons-based peer production can help our economy or growth – my question is, maybe there is a redefinition of economy like there is a redefinition of ownership?
Do we have to measure the benefits of peer production in terms of conventional economic principles? Or do we need a new scale?
I’m looking at a time when we won’t need to earn part of our salary that we spend on buying information and entertainment.
Will peer production spill over from the digital media to production of food and other necessities?
]]>By: HoniehLaylahttp://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/02/21/reading-summaries-for-week-5/comment-page-1/#comment-572
HoniehLaylaTue, 23 Feb 2010 20:04:31 +0000http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/?p=5688#comment-572A-
Nissenbaum's research is typically values based, hence her class "Values Embodied in Info Technology" so that is probably why you were disappointed by the technical aspect of it. She like's to focus on how technology development NEEDS certain values to be incorporated in order for it to be successful and worth while. (ie: Freedom, Privacy, Virtue, etc.)
In this paper, she puts forth an emphasis on virtue, and that peer to peer coordinating can in essence create a virtuous community, leading to a better and common goal.
The environment's they studied are now outdated - So I do agree with you that the conclusion may have needed more validating points to support her arguments.
:)A-

Nissenbaum’s research is typically values based, hence her class “Values Embodied in Info Technology” so that is probably why you were disappointed by the technical aspect of it. She like’s to focus on how technology development NEEDS certain values to be incorporated in order for it to be successful and worth while. (ie: Freedom, Privacy, Virtue, etc.)

In this paper, she puts forth an emphasis on virtue, and that peer to peer coordinating can in essence create a virtuous community, leading to a better and common goal.

The environment’s they studied are now outdated – So I do agree with you that the conclusion may have needed more validating points to support her arguments.

]]>By: Alexandrahttp://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/02/21/reading-summaries-for-week-5/comment-page-1/#comment-571
AlexandraTue, 23 Feb 2010 19:37:52 +0000http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/?p=5688#comment-571So I'll admit that I just recently finished the piece by Helen Nissembaum (hey, it was part of the recommended readings!) and I look forward to discussing it later in class. I felt like she and Benkler wound up spending so much time explaining themselves about how they were using the term "virtue" that they hardly spent any time discussing open source. The last few pages were the most interesting and relevant, in my opinion.
I don't even think the conclusion was very strong. As Benkler and Nissenbaum noted, of the few environments they studied, their results are influenced by self-reporting bias and self-selected respondents:
"insofar as any other-regarding action is possible, there is good reason to hold that a sizable proportion of peer participation is pro-social, or morally praiseworthy in the ways discussed." (412)
There are so many qualifiers in that sentence! "good reason", "sizable proportion" - these are not statements that make me feel like the authors are confident in their findings.So I’ll admit that I just recently finished the piece by Helen Nissembaum (hey, it was part of the recommended readings!) and I look forward to discussing it later in class. I felt like she and Benkler wound up spending so much time explaining themselves about how they were using the term “virtue” that they hardly spent any time discussing open source. The last few pages were the most interesting and relevant, in my opinion.

I don’t even think the conclusion was very strong. As Benkler and Nissenbaum noted, of the few environments they studied, their results are influenced by self-reporting bias and self-selected respondents:

“insofar as any other-regarding action is possible, there is good reason to hold that a sizable proportion of peer participation is pro-social, or morally praiseworthy in the ways discussed.” (412)

There are so many qualifiers in that sentence! “good reason”, “sizable proportion” – these are not statements that make me feel like the authors are confident in their findings.

]]>By: juliette bhttp://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/02/21/reading-summaries-for-week-5/comment-page-1/#comment-553
juliette bTue, 23 Feb 2010 17:03:01 +0000http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/?p=5688#comment-553What I found really interesting in Weber's work is his critic on our approach on property based on "the right to exclude". Both Weber and Benkler pinpoints that we defenitely need to change our mindset. \
In this respect, Benkler seems to be quiet confident that the change will indeed occur despite the will of corporations or individuals.
But here is my concern : the ideas and the means to change the system are mostly in the hands of big corporations to which the system, as it is, profits. How can we expect them to collaborate bring the skills necessary to change?
Can anyone think of concrete drivers that would motivate corporations to participate?What I found really interesting in Weber’s work is his critic on our approach on property based on “the right to exclude”. Both Weber and Benkler pinpoints that we defenitely need to change our mindset. \

In this respect, Benkler seems to be quiet confident that the change will indeed occur despite the will of corporations or individuals.

But here is my concern : the ideas and the means to change the system are mostly in the hands of big corporations to which the system, as it is, profits. How can we expect them to collaborate bring the skills necessary to change?

Can anyone think of concrete drivers that would motivate corporations to participate?

]]>By: nadinehttp://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/02/21/reading-summaries-for-week-5/comment-page-1/#comment-549
nadineTue, 23 Feb 2010 16:10:11 +0000http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/?p=5688#comment-549@Ryan, so glad that you picked up the discussion about how companies profit from crowdsourcing and open source. Have a look at this competition of Apple:
http://gamesalad.com/
Brief summary: challenge to create the most innovative, creative, and fun video games for Mac and iPhone. Winners receive a pass to a technology fair and iPod touch.
What do you think about? Do you consider it just a fun competition at an Tech-Expo or do you see a hidden agenda behind it?@Ryan, so glad that you picked up the discussion about how companies profit from crowdsourcing and open source. Have a look at this competition of Apple:

http://gamesalad.com/
Brief summary: challenge to create the most innovative, creative, and fun video games for Mac and iPhone. Winners receive a pass to a technology fair and iPod touch.

What do you think about? Do you consider it just a fun competition at an Tech-Expo or do you see a hidden agenda behind it?

]]>By: Ryanhttp://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/02/21/reading-summaries-for-week-5/comment-page-1/#comment-534
RyanTue, 23 Feb 2010 05:35:22 +0000http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/?p=5688#comment-534Wow, Ok there is a lot here to discuss. It seems that traditional notions of structure, Marxist and Capitalist systems of labor, and property have been fundamentally challenged. Weber's concept to transcend one's idea of "property" as one's "right to exclude" another from something, but having the "right to distribute" is epistemological argument is founded within the realm of the internet and how it transcends normative understandings of the public sphere. It goes hand-in-hand with the last weeks topic of copyright and how it has served more of a purpose to exclude others from rather than an open source model where others are freely permitted to copy, alter, and improve upon something. Yes, successful examples are littered throughout Benkler's and Weber's articles, however, one cannot expect the economics and politics of the internet to replace realities traditional hierarchal structure of the division of labor. Weber remarks,
"The software world is almost a limiting case for the study of knowledge economies, in the sense that it is made up of digitally encoded knowledge all the way through from top to bottom. Production processes that evolve in this space are not a hard test of limits but rather a leading indicator of change and a place where experiments can be seen at a relatively early stage."
It is a limiting case because how many people, apart from the software coders, understand this "digitally encoded knowledge" to be able to participate. Hence, the sphere of this production is limited to those with the knowledge and skill to participate, which I might say is a small minority of people. The possibilities are quite remarkable to think of the experimentation and the impact that open-source can have, but again, it is limited to those few who 'know how' to aggregate the open-source codes. Thus, not everyone has access to such things. Sure - Wikipedia, Flickr, etc. are great examples of such collaborative efforts, but open source is a coded distributive free property shared for the altruistic and utilitarian benefit of the internet and humanity. Property on the internet's cyber-realm is different to a great degree than real life property. Weber's point is acknowledged, but it cannot account for the reality of real-life economics. The economics and politics of the web fall into a separate category that circumvent hierarchical structures of ownership, laws, and minority of voices. People have always found ways around the normative system of labor, property, and money.
I agree with Benkler a la Jimena's reference that we see as a result of the internet/web this hybrid or synergy of 'legal and illegal, commercial and non-commercial creating a robust system to resist censorship and apply analysis'. This democratic and revolutionary way of production and collaboration undergird these theories of open-source developed by Benkler, Weber, Raymond, and more.
One question that kept plaguing me was there was no explanation to how >>
"Open source code does not obliterate profit, capitalism, or the general concept of intellectual property rights. Companies and individuals are creating intellectual products and making money from open source software code, inventing new business models and notions about property along the way”
How? Jimena and Nadine explain their concerns over this volunteer work or unpaid labor that gets exploited, "Where do we draw the line between peer to peer and unfair labor? " I do agree with Benkler as he critiques the results to the poll of why people helped out with the SETI project. He is careful to take the results with a grain of salt into thinking that everyone is as virtuous as they seem. Maybe so. I appreciate his point that there could be a variety of reasons why one could put in the time and not get paid for it. Still, regardless of the motivation, the virtuous, moral, and ethical implications for such collaborative success seem to justify how substantial and important open-source is for today's age and how it challenges and negotiates hegemonic structures of economics and politics.
I personally think that commons-based production, open source, and other utilitarian models of sharing and collaboration are important in further steering and shifting our society into a more democratic culture of participation. Romanticism aside, the legal implications that this creates is not pretty.Wow, Ok there is a lot here to discuss. It seems that traditional notions of structure, Marxist and Capitalist systems of labor, and property have been fundamentally challenged. Weber’s concept to transcend one’s idea of “property” as one’s “right to exclude” another from something, but having the “right to distribute” is epistemological argument is founded within the realm of the internet and how it transcends normative understandings of the public sphere. It goes hand-in-hand with the last weeks topic of copyright and how it has served more of a purpose to exclude others from rather than an open source model where others are freely permitted to copy, alter, and improve upon something. Yes, successful examples are littered throughout Benkler’s and Weber’s articles, however, one cannot expect the economics and politics of the internet to replace realities traditional hierarchal structure of the division of labor. Weber remarks,

“The software world is almost a limiting case for the study of knowledge economies, in the sense that it is made up of digitally encoded knowledge all the way through from top to bottom. Production processes that evolve in this space are not a hard test of limits but rather a leading indicator of change and a place where experiments can be seen at a relatively early stage.”

It is a limiting case because how many people, apart from the software coders, understand this “digitally encoded knowledge” to be able to participate. Hence, the sphere of this production is limited to those with the knowledge and skill to participate, which I might say is a small minority of people. The possibilities are quite remarkable to think of the experimentation and the impact that open-source can have, but again, it is limited to those few who ‘know how’ to aggregate the open-source codes. Thus, not everyone has access to such things. Sure – Wikipedia, Flickr, etc. are great examples of such collaborative efforts, but open source is a coded distributive free property shared for the altruistic and utilitarian benefit of the internet and humanity. Property on the internet’s cyber-realm is different to a great degree than real life property. Weber’s point is acknowledged, but it cannot account for the reality of real-life economics. The economics and politics of the web fall into a separate category that circumvent hierarchical structures of ownership, laws, and minority of voices. People have always found ways around the normative system of labor, property, and money.

I agree with Benkler a la Jimena’s reference that we see as a result of the internet/web this hybrid or synergy of ‘legal and illegal, commercial and non-commercial creating a robust system to resist censorship and apply analysis’. This democratic and revolutionary way of production and collaboration undergird these theories of open-source developed by Benkler, Weber, Raymond, and more.

One question that kept plaguing me was there was no explanation to how >>

“Open source code does not obliterate profit, capitalism, or the general concept of intellectual property rights. Companies and individuals are creating intellectual products and making money from open source software code, inventing new business models and notions about property along the way”

How? Jimena and Nadine explain their concerns over this volunteer work or unpaid labor that gets exploited, “Where do we draw the line between peer to peer and unfair labor? ” I do agree with Benkler as he critiques the results to the poll of why people helped out with the SETI project. He is careful to take the results with a grain of salt into thinking that everyone is as virtuous as they seem. Maybe so. I appreciate his point that there could be a variety of reasons why one could put in the time and not get paid for it. Still, regardless of the motivation, the virtuous, moral, and ethical implications for such collaborative success seem to justify how substantial and important open-source is for today’s age and how it challenges and negotiates hegemonic structures of economics and politics.

I personally think that commons-based production, open source, and other utilitarian models of sharing and collaboration are important in further steering and shifting our society into a more democratic culture of participation. Romanticism aside, the legal implications that this creates is not pretty.

]]>By: nadinehttp://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/02/21/reading-summaries-for-week-5/comment-page-1/#comment-522
nadineMon, 22 Feb 2010 19:45:28 +0000http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/?p=5688#comment-522Here is the link to the conference videos: http://vimeo.com/user2103510/videos/sort:dateHere is the link to the conference videos: http://vimeo.com/user2103510/videos/sort:date
]]>By: nadinehttp://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/02/21/reading-summaries-for-week-5/comment-page-1/#comment-517
nadineMon, 22 Feb 2010 18:19:37 +0000http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/?p=5688#comment-517Jimena posted a great video about open source design that is a great complementary to Weber's article. If you haven't had a chance to watch it, here is again the link: http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/jimenalara/delivered-in-beta-a-documentary-on-open-design-innovation/
It is important to keep in mind that open source designers are VERY attached to their ideas and feel strong ownership of what they do. Open source doesn't mean happy collaboration and the end of ownership, as one might get the impression from Benkler. Though, I liked his second presentation where he draws a more realistic picture. As he explained with the Toyota example, we attend to a change of system. A different way of regarding copyright- though not revolutionary! The notion of copyright has been evolving in history. Piracy, for example, wasn't linked in the 18th century to intellectual propriety or the rights of the authors, but to the rights of the publisher guilds (distribution). It is interesting that Weber brings up the Fair Use Doctrine (on page 4) when arguing for open source. Matter of interpretation?
@Jimena: I appreciate that you bring up the problem of unpaid labor. "Volunteering" can be easily exploited. There was an interesting conference last fall at the New School: The Internet as Playground and Factory, that dealt with the changing notion of labor in the digital age. http://digitallabor.org/
Have a look at the presentation about "Crowdsourced Labor: Digital Democracy or Centralized Sweatshop? "Jimena posted a great video about open source design that is a great complementary to Weber’s article. If you haven’t had a chance to watch it, here is again the link: http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/jimenalara/delivered-in-beta-a-documentary-on-open-design-innovation/
It is important to keep in mind that open source designers are VERY attached to their ideas and feel strong ownership of what they do. Open source doesn’t mean happy collaboration and the end of ownership, as one might get the impression from Benkler. Though, I liked his second presentation where he draws a more realistic picture. As he explained with the Toyota example, we attend to a change of system. A different way of regarding copyright- though not revolutionary! The notion of copyright has been evolving in history. Piracy, for example, wasn’t linked in the 18th century to intellectual propriety or the rights of the authors, but to the rights of the publisher guilds (distribution). It is interesting that Weber brings up the Fair Use Doctrine (on page 4) when arguing for open source. Matter of interpretation?
@Jimena: I appreciate that you bring up the problem of unpaid labor. “Volunteering” can be easily exploited. There was an interesting conference last fall at the New School: The Internet as Playground and Factory, that dealt with the changing notion of labor in the digital age. http://digitallabor.org/
Have a look at the presentation about “Crowdsourced Labor: Digital Democracy or Centralized Sweatshop? “
]]>By: Lesliehttp://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/02/21/reading-summaries-for-week-5/comment-page-1/#comment-512
LeslieMon, 22 Feb 2010 17:11:09 +0000http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/?p=5688#comment-512As Elizabeth mentioned, I thought a good point that was brought up in all of this week's articles in some way, is that it's not necessarily the technology, but the culture that surrounds that technology that is facilitating how Internet use is changing. As Benkler noted in "The Wealth of Networks," that the technology of the internet enables people to do more, "for and by themselves," while still connecting with others. The Internet gives the means to collaborate (the virtual space), but the way people are choosing to use it is facilitating a whole new way of collaboration and creation.
As Benkler says, innovation is central to this. But, innovation and change can scare people, which is creating this "new vs old" battle, with the law as the playing field.
Weber's point that, "Property in open source is configured fundamentally around the right to distribute, not the right to exclude," goes right along with how culture is changing around the technology of the internet and new media. This means of interaction is part of the way that the culture of the internet is changing. As Weber notes, this can be hard to accept and understand, as it is fundamentally different to the "old" culture and way of doing things.
Weber also asks at the end of his article if it's possible to, "build a working economic system," around the open source process. This is definitely something that needs to be further considered as the culture surrounding the internet continues to change and develop. While there's a lot of room for creativity and to build and expand on ideas, how does a monetary system fit into this? It will be difficult for creators to survive and to continue to create if they cannot live off of their works. The incentive to create might then be lost.As Elizabeth mentioned, I thought a good point that was brought up in all of this week’s articles in some way, is that it’s not necessarily the technology, but the culture that surrounds that technology that is facilitating how Internet use is changing. As Benkler noted in “The Wealth of Networks,” that the technology of the internet enables people to do more, “for and by themselves,” while still connecting with others. The Internet gives the means to collaborate (the virtual space), but the way people are choosing to use it is facilitating a whole new way of collaboration and creation.

As Benkler says, innovation is central to this. But, innovation and change can scare people, which is creating this “new vs old” battle, with the law as the playing field.

Weber’s point that, “Property in open source is configured fundamentally around the right to distribute, not the right to exclude,” goes right along with how culture is changing around the technology of the internet and new media. This means of interaction is part of the way that the culture of the internet is changing. As Weber notes, this can be hard to accept and understand, as it is fundamentally different to the “old” culture and way of doing things.

Weber also asks at the end of his article if it’s possible to, “build a working economic system,” around the open source process. This is definitely something that needs to be further considered as the culture surrounding the internet continues to change and develop. While there’s a lot of room for creativity and to build and expand on ideas, how does a monetary system fit into this? It will be difficult for creators to survive and to continue to create if they cannot live off of their works. The incentive to create might then be lost.

]]>By: Alexandrahttp://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/02/21/reading-summaries-for-week-5/comment-page-1/#comment-503
AlexandraMon, 22 Feb 2010 02:54:51 +0000http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/?p=5688#comment-503@Jimena I definitely echo your thoughts from your first post about humans' ideas about property as a right to exclude as opposed to distribute. That was one of the ideas that definitely struck me from this weeks' readings. Although there are clearly open source programs, systems, websites, etc out there that are working perfectly well without established hierarchical structures, how difficult do you think it will be to take these ideas more mainstream? The average joe (dare I reference the 2008 campaign by saying "Joe the plumber"?!) probably has never even heard of Linux and would be baffled by the concept of open source. I wonder what the class thinks it would take for this idea to take a broader hold. Wikipedia is something that I think is very mainstream by now, so maybe it could really work.
Also Jimena, great idea posting these events. I particularly like the idea of a "wireside chat"!@Jimena I definitely echo your thoughts from your first post about humans’ ideas about property as a right to exclude as opposed to distribute. That was one of the ideas that definitely struck me from this weeks’ readings. Although there are clearly open source programs, systems, websites, etc out there that are working perfectly well without established hierarchical structures, how difficult do you think it will be to take these ideas more mainstream? The average joe (dare I reference the 2008 campaign by saying “Joe the plumber”?!) probably has never even heard of Linux and would be baffled by the concept of open source. I wonder what the class thinks it would take for this idea to take a broader hold. Wikipedia is something that I think is very mainstream by now, so maybe it could really work.

Also Jimena, great idea posting these events. I particularly like the idea of a “wireside chat”!

]]>By: Jimenahttp://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/02/21/reading-summaries-for-week-5/comment-page-1/#comment-500
JimenaMon, 22 Feb 2010 01:36:32 +0000http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/?p=5688#comment-500P.S.—to add to our (or at least my) ever present anxiety about so much to do in NYC and so little time, there is A LOT of stuff going on related to the topics we’ve been covering. Check out the speakers!!
1. NYU’s Free Culture Club meeting:
Monday night at 8pm in Kimmel 904.
Screening of Colombia law professor Eben Moglen's talk “Freedom in the Cloud” on software freedom, privacy, and security. Free pizza :)
2. The Law.Gov Movement: A Panel Discussion
Thursday, February 24th, 6:15-8pm
New York Law School
Room A700
Internet pioneer Carl Malamud, President and Founder of Public.Resource.Org, will discuss the Law.Gov movement and it's opportunities for citizens to help change the way we distribute America's Operating System. He will be joined by distinguished Information Law scholars Helen Nissenbaum and Nicholas Bramble. This event is open to the public. RSVP to Naomi Allen at naomi.allen@nyls.edu.
3. Limiting Knowledge in Democracy
February 24th – February 26th
New School is hosting this social research conference to ask “Where is America today with respect to the limits on our access to information, limits on what we can keep confidential and what the government and other institutions can keep secret? How can the public gain access to information and how do we decide what information is a citizen’s right to know? What information endangers individuals’ or the country’s wellbeing and safety? Are the ever-increasing number of technological innovations fundamentally transforming what we can know and what we cannot? What can remain confidential and what cannot?”
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh will be giving the keynote and Jonathan Zittrain will be talking about the impact of new technologies on increasing limits and transparency. The full agenda can be found here: http://www.socres.org/limitingknowledge/agenda.html Admission is free to students.
4. Wireside Chat with Lawrence Lessig
Thursday, February 25th, 6-7:30pm
You can tune in live by going to http://openvideoalliance.org/event/lessig/ or go to the screening hosted by the Open Planning Project at 148 Lafayette St between Grand & Howard. Make sure to get there early to secure a seat. The talk will focus primarily on copyright and the fair use doctrine.
5. NYC Creative Commons Salon
Wednesday, March 3rd, 7-10pm
The theme of this salon is open education Featured speakers include Eric Frank from Flat World Knowledge and Neeru Paharia from Peer 2 Peer University. Free beer :)
If anyone is up to something, let me know!P.S.—to add to our (or at least my) ever present anxiety about so much to do in NYC and so little time, there is A LOT of stuff going on related to the topics we’ve been covering. Check out the speakers!!

2. The Law.Gov Movement: A Panel Discussion
Thursday, February 24th, 6:15-8pm
New York Law School
Room A700

Internet pioneer Carl Malamud, President and Founder of Public.Resource.Org, will discuss the Law.Gov movement and it’s opportunities for citizens to help change the way we distribute America’s Operating System. He will be joined by distinguished Information Law scholars Helen Nissenbaum and Nicholas Bramble. This event is open to the public. RSVP to Naomi Allen at naomi.allen@nyls.edu.

3. Limiting Knowledge in Democracy
February 24th – February 26th
New School is hosting this social research conference to ask “Where is America today with respect to the limits on our access to information, limits on what we can keep confidential and what the government and other institutions can keep secret? How can the public gain access to information and how do we decide what information is a citizen’s right to know? What information endangers individuals’ or the country’s wellbeing and safety? Are the ever-increasing number of technological innovations fundamentally transforming what we can know and what we cannot? What can remain confidential and what cannot?”

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh will be giving the keynote and Jonathan Zittrain will be talking about the impact of new technologies on increasing limits and transparency. The full agenda can be found here: http://www.socres.org/limitingknowledge/agenda.html Admission is free to students.

4. Wireside Chat with Lawrence Lessig
Thursday, February 25th, 6-7:30pm
You can tune in live by going to http://openvideoalliance.org/event/lessig/ or go to the screening hosted by the Open Planning Project at 148 Lafayette St between Grand & Howard. Make sure to get there early to secure a seat. The talk will focus primarily on copyright and the fair use doctrine.

5. NYC Creative Commons Salon
Wednesday, March 3rd, 7-10pm
The theme of this salon is open education Featured speakers include Eric Frank from Flat World Knowledge and Neeru Paharia from Peer 2 Peer University. Free beer

If anyone is up to something, let me know!

]]>By: Jimenahttp://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/02/21/reading-summaries-for-week-5/comment-page-1/#comment-499
JimenaMon, 22 Feb 2010 00:34:16 +0000http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/?p=5688#comment-499Shifting the mindset from having the "right to exclude" to the "right to distribute" over what one has produced is the most difficult step in a society that has been programmed during centuries to consider property as physical commodity. The idea of ownership is so strong in the human mind, that it has taken it to the point of believing we can claim property over fellow human beings, as in slavery. Therefore, I think it's fascinating that P2P and Open Source are a real, true, working alternative to capitalist forms of production, proven to work for a while now. In spite the political and power structures present in open source, in spite of its flaws and complications, it is a system that is here, it’s working, and won't go away.
That, as a valid force that challenges hegemony, is invaluable. I think we all read Raymond Williams’ 'Marxism and Literature' for Core Seminar last semester— I paraphrase from him: “The dominant class has a certain ideology by decision, but the subordinate one has the same one by imposition- because “the production of ideas … is in the hands of those who control the primary means of production” (109) Hegemony is a process that comprises experiences, relationships, activities, that does not exist passively but is continually resisted and challenged, and also defended and renewed. (112) Clearly, open source takes "the production of ideas" out of "the hands of those who control the primary means of production" and gives that power on the 1 billion people (according to Benkler) that are connected on the planet.
As Weber says, “technology may change the costs of doing things but that is ultimately a marginal adjustment in political-economic behavior. What make a significant difference in human life are the ideas, theories, and institutions that are themselves a product of experimentation and imagination, of a different sort.” (3) The fact that a community of knowledge has been organizing itself around a common interest, accommodating different motivations, capacities and authorities is an incredible example of something much larger than the concrete results themselves (read software).
I think that what Benkler points out as the actors participating in these networks is unique: “a mixture of legal and illegal, commercial and non-commercial creating a robust system to resist censorship and apply analysis”. Talk about hybrids!
There is, of course, a dark side to this form of production. The fact that the NASA crowdsourced the work of trained PhDs on 30,000 people that labored for free is great—but those thousands of ‘volunteers’ did unpaid labor, and those PhDs didn’t get the job, of course. Where do we draw the line between peer to peer and unfair labor? Still, my favorite quote was Weber’s: "during the early stages of economic and social change, analysts often pay more attention to what is going away than what is struggling to be born...it is easier to see precisely the destructive side of creative destruction than it is to see the creative side". Of course, I don’t know if we can still consider open source production to be in its “early stages”. What do you guys think?Shifting the mindset from having the “right to exclude” to the “right to distribute” over what one has produced is the most difficult step in a society that has been programmed during centuries to consider property as physical commodity. The idea of ownership is so strong in the human mind, that it has taken it to the point of believing we can claim property over fellow human beings, as in slavery. Therefore, I think it’s fascinating that P2P and Open Source are a real, true, working alternative to capitalist forms of production, proven to work for a while now. In spite the political and power structures present in open source, in spite of its flaws and complications, it is a system that is here, it’s working, and won’t go away.

That, as a valid force that challenges hegemony, is invaluable. I think we all read Raymond Williams’ ‘Marxism and Literature’ for Core Seminar last semester— I paraphrase from him: “The dominant class has a certain ideology by decision, but the subordinate one has the same one by imposition- because “the production of ideas … is in the hands of those who control the primary means of production” (109) Hegemony is a process that comprises experiences, relationships, activities, that does not exist passively but is continually resisted and challenged, and also defended and renewed. (112) Clearly, open source takes “the production of ideas” out of “the hands of those who control the primary means of production” and gives that power on the 1 billion people (according to Benkler) that are connected on the planet.

As Weber says, “technology may change the costs of doing things but that is ultimately a marginal adjustment in political-economic behavior. What make a significant difference in human life are the ideas, theories, and institutions that are themselves a product of experimentation and imagination, of a different sort.” (3) The fact that a community of knowledge has been organizing itself around a common interest, accommodating different motivations, capacities and authorities is an incredible example of something much larger than the concrete results themselves (read software).

I think that what Benkler points out as the actors participating in these networks is unique: “a mixture of legal and illegal, commercial and non-commercial creating a robust system to resist censorship and apply analysis”. Talk about hybrids!

There is, of course, a dark side to this form of production. The fact that the NASA crowdsourced the work of trained PhDs on 30,000 people that labored for free is great—but those thousands of ‘volunteers’ did unpaid labor, and those PhDs didn’t get the job, of course. Where do we draw the line between peer to peer and unfair labor? Still, my favorite quote was Weber’s: “during the early stages of economic and social change, analysts often pay more attention to what is going away than what is struggling to be born…it is easier to see precisely the destructive side of creative destruction than it is to see the creative side”. Of course, I don’t know if we can still consider open source production to be in its “early stages”. What do you guys think?

]]>By: ElzbthMllrhttp://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/02/21/reading-summaries-for-week-5/comment-page-1/#comment-490
ElzbthMllrSun, 21 Feb 2010 22:47:06 +0000http://cultureandcommunication.org/tdm/s10/?p=5688#comment-490Benkler’s discussion about the relationship between culture and politics was very specific about how both social and economic forces may influence democratic societies. It seemed to incorporate both the ideas of sharing, conversation, collaboration and collective action that we talked about from Shirky, as well as Lessig’s talk about culture and society. The main point that I took away from this talk was that as entry level costs plummet, there is the chance for something entirely new and the chance for groups and people to build the output for society can grow exponentially. However, I think I’m being influenced by something we discussed in class last week about whether or not we are actually there yet. Benkler illustrated the possibility of how this can work and produced several examples that have been repeatedly brought up (Wikipedia, Flickr), and I think it’s important to remember that it’s not necessarily the technology that’s driving this change, it’s the culture that is created as a result of the technology itself.
I think Weber also hits on several important points, such as the relationship between the market and this kind of culture. He writes “Open source code does not obliterate profit, capitalism, or the general concept of intellectual property rights. Companies and individuals are creating intellectual products and making money from open source software code, inventing new business models and notions about property along the way”. This is important because as Benkler says in his talk, the market is not going to go away, so to a certain extent we need to have a culture that is pushing against it. We have to understand how this culture relates to market if we’re expecting to understand how it can change social norms, economies, etc. And again, like Benkler, Weber comes back to the point that it’s not technology that’s necessarily changing platforms, organizations etc, but rather its ideas that are driving this change in culture. It’s interesting however, that all the readings from this week deal with the relationship between culture, politics, and democracy, yet we inevitably talk about how technology plays a role in each of these issues.Benkler’s discussion about the relationship between culture and politics was very specific about how both social and economic forces may influence democratic societies. It seemed to incorporate both the ideas of sharing, conversation, collaboration and collective action that we talked about from Shirky, as well as Lessig’s talk about culture and society. The main point that I took away from this talk was that as entry level costs plummet, there is the chance for something entirely new and the chance for groups and people to build the output for society can grow exponentially. However, I think I’m being influenced by something we discussed in class last week about whether or not we are actually there yet. Benkler illustrated the possibility of how this can work and produced several examples that have been repeatedly brought up (Wikipedia, Flickr), and I think it’s important to remember that it’s not necessarily the technology that’s driving this change, it’s the culture that is created as a result of the technology itself.

I think Weber also hits on several important points, such as the relationship between the market and this kind of culture. He writes “Open source code does not obliterate profit, capitalism, or the general concept of intellectual property rights. Companies and individuals are creating intellectual products and making money from open source software code, inventing new business models and notions about property along the way”. This is important because as Benkler says in his talk, the market is not going to go away, so to a certain extent we need to have a culture that is pushing against it. We have to understand how this culture relates to market if we’re expecting to understand how it can change social norms, economies, etc. And again, like Benkler, Weber comes back to the point that it’s not technology that’s necessarily changing platforms, organizations etc, but rather its ideas that are driving this change in culture. It’s interesting however, that all the readings from this week deal with the relationship between culture, politics, and democracy, yet we inevitably talk about how technology plays a role in each of these issues.